Monday, May 5, 2014

The Media's Reporting of the April Unemployment Rate -- A Little Knowledge Can Be Dangerous

May 5, 2014

The Media’s Reporting of the April
Unemployment Rate – A Little Knowledge Can Be Dangerous

Economists have “trained” the media to quickly check out
what has happened to the labor force when the unemployment rate declines. If
the unemployment rate drops and so, too, does the labor force, then the decline
in the unemployment rate might not be
a signal of a strengthening labor market. Rather, under these circumstances,
the decline in the unemployment rate might
reflect potential workers becoming discouraged over the lack of employment
opportunities and, therefore, dropping out of the labor force. I emphasize
“might” because a decline in the labor force does not always reflect an increase in so-called discouraged workers. And,
in fact – well, fact may be too strong a word, but according to data contained
in the April Household Employment Survey – the number of people not in the labor force in April but who did want a job changed by a big fat
ZERO. But the mainstream media, financial or general, did not report this.
Rather, they reported that the 0.4 point decline in the April unemployment rate
was suspect because labor force dropped by 806 thousand, implying that thousands
must have exited the labor force because of poor job prospects.

When the “highlights” of the monthly employment report
are first reported on CNBC and Bloomberg TV, complete with the six frames of
“experts”, and a report like April’s is released with a decline in both the
unemployment rate and the labor
force, the first thing Ilook at in Table A-1, Employment Status
of the Civilian Population, of the Household Employment Survey is the line
“Persons who currently want a job”, which is a subcategory of the line above
it, “Not in the labor force”. As I mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the
number of people who were not in the labor force in April but who also
currently wanted a job changed by zero from March. So, although a one-month’s
decline in the labor force of 806 thousand is, indeed, an anomaly, another
datum obtained from the same survey
indicates that this decline in the labor force was not due to potential workers dropping out because of poor job
prospects.

The second thing I look at after a monthly employment
report similar to April’s is released is Table A-15 in the Household Employment
Survey, “Alternative Measures of Labor Underutilization”. Specifically, I look
at the U-5 measure of measure of the unemployment rate, “Total Unemployed plus
Marginally Attached Workers as a percent of the Civilian Labor Force plus All
Marginally Attached Workers”. (Persons marginally attached to the labor force
are those who currently are neither working nor looking for work but indicate
that they want and are available for a job and have looked for work sometime in
the past 12 months. Discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached,
have

given a job-market related reason for not currently
looking for work.) So, the U-5 unemployment rate definition accounts for those
unemployed potential workers who currently desire a job but have stopped
looking for employment. If the “headline” unemployment rate, technically, the
U-3 definition in Table A-15, declines and
the U-5 unemployment rate declines by a similar magnitude, then one can deduce
that the decline in the headline unemployment rate was not due to potential workers dropping out of the labor force
because of a lack of employment opportunities.

The chart below shows the month-to-month change in the
labor force along with the month-to-month changes in the headline unemployment
rate and the U-5 definition of the unemployment rate. In April, the 806
thousand person decline in the labor force was accompanied by a 0.4 point
decline in both the headline and U-5 unemployment rates. Because the
U-5 unemployment rate includes those who have dropped out of the labor force
but who currently do desire to work and because this measure of the
unemployment rate declined by the same magnitude as the headline measure, we
cannot infer that the 0.4 decline in
the headline unemployment rate was somehow “tainted” by people dropping out of
the labor force due to bleak job prospects, as many in the media did infer.

In December 2013, the labor force dropped by 347
thousand, accompanied by a 0.3 decline in the headline unemployment rate and
only a 0.1 point decline in the U-5 unemployment rate. Thus, in December 2013
in contrast to April 2014, I would
surmise that part of the decline in the headline unemployment rate was related to people who wanted to work
dropping out of the labor force in December.

In the 12 months
ended April 2014, there has been a 0.5 point net decline in the labor
participation rate, the civilian labor force as a percent of the civilian
noninstitutional population. In these same 12 months, there has been a 1.2
point net decline in the headline unemployment rate. Given the decline in the participation
rate, a statistic that the media has been trained to focus on when interpreting
a decline in the headline unemployment rate, can we conclude that the decline
in the headline unemployment rate overstates the improvement in labor market
conditions because potential workers
are choosing not to “participate” in the hunt for jobs due to weak job
prospects? No, because in these same
12 months there has been a 1.3 point
decline in the U-5 unemployment rate, which accounts for labor force dropouts
due to weak job prospects.

It remains a mystery as to why in April the labor force
plunged by 806 thousand and why the labor participation rate fell by 0.4
points. Looking at changes in the participation rate by age categories, it is
revealed that the largest April declines were concentrated in the 16-to-24 year
old cohort. Perhaps a light when on in the brains of our youth, alerting them
to the value of education and inducing them to stay in or go back to school. I
don’t know. But what I do know from the data in other parts of the Household
Employment Situation Survey is that the bulk of the declines in the April labor
force and participation rate was not
due to people suddenly deciding to sit on their couches and eat Cheetos all day
because job prospects were so bleak in April.

Perhaps I am being too critical of the media for not
being more diligent in analyzing the monthly employment data. After all, I do
not recall any economist interviewed by the mainstream media mentioning that
the U-5 unemployment rate also fell by 0.4 points in April, thereby ruling out
the notion that the headline unemployment rate fell because workers dropped out of the labor force because they were so
disheartened by weak job prospects. If the “experts” the media turn to for
analysis do not examine and/or understand the relevant sections of the
employment reports, how can I really expect the media to accurately report the
economic news?

4 comments:

The author of this article needs to step back and look at the economy as a big picture as presented by John Lindauer and the late George Stigler instead of at a minor portion of its inaccurate data being analyzed in terms of the theories and policies of Hayek and Keynes. It is, in essence, a very sophisticated presentation of inaccurate common knowledge.

Every trained macroeconomist knows that the "official" unemployment rate, and the various derivations of it, are hopelessly inaccurate and misleading as an indicator of where the economy is and where it is headed. A much more accurate rate can be obtained using today's superior Current Population Survey data and the labor force participation rates during times of prosperity (people change slowly). They suggest an unemployment rate of about eighteen percent and worsening - and that's if you consider an engineer delivering pizza to be employed and ignore the millions of older Americans who are additionally willing to work because they lost their homes, businesses, pensions, etc.

Readers and the author would do well to read the new ebook version of Lindauer's "Inflation, Unemployment, and Government Deficits" or something similar.

So, if I understand you correctly, the biggest part of the decrease in the labor force is due to people who simply didn't want a job (yet). Most of these people may be young people who stay or go back to school: "Perhaps a light when on in the brains of our youth, alerting them to the value of education and inducing them to stay in or go back to school."

So why do they go back to school (or stay in school) instead of looking for a job? That's where your analysis stops, for some reason. Even though the answer seems to me to be simple: because of the poor quality of the jobs that are available to them.

"Meanwhile, the quality of the jobs in our economy continues to go down. The House Ways and Means Committee says that seven out of every eight jobs that have been "added" to the economy under Barack Obama have been part-time jobs. But you can't raise a family or plan a career around a part-time job. To be honest, it is very hard for a single person to even survive on a part-time wage in this economic environment.

As the quality of our jobs goes down, so do our incomes. The median household income has declined for five years in a row, and the middle class is falling apart." http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-04/number-working-age-americans-without-job-has-risen-27-million-2000

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/04/28/u-s-job-growth-is-coming-in-all-the-wrong-places/ As our colleague Ryan McCarthy wrote, America's economic recovery has a qualitative problem: Yes, employment is coming back, but so much of it is not good employment. According to a new analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data, the industries responsible for the most job creation over the last four years are also the industries that pay the least.

quantitative (moderate) vs qualitative job growth in the US (zero) since 2000, Houston, we do have a problem: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-09/jobs-friday-what-bubblevision-revelers-missed So it is entirely fair to call people clueless who revel in 217,000 “new” jobs last month, while completely ignoring that this cyclical blip occurred in a context in which there has been no gain in the true metric of employment—-labor hours in the business sector—for 16 years running.